Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that, in the face of much ignorance and prejudice about prisons, Chief Inspectors of Prisons, including the newly arrived noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, have been a sane and strong voice and have given independent advice and criticism where necessary to the Home Secretary on prison matters?
	Of course it is desirable that different parts of the system should co-operate. Will the noble Baroness give us an undertaking that the Government will not use that as a pretext for in some way weakening or muffling the voice of the prisons inspectorate by mixing it up with other activities which are quite different?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I take issue with the noble Lord in relation to two elements of the premise on which he asks that question. One is "confusion" and the second is "ragbag". I make it absolutely clear that the new inspectorate seeks to add value and in no way to diminish the acuity of inspection that is currently available. Many frontline practitioners have said that the profusion of criss-crossing inspections have made their lives very difficult. We hope to add value by bringing those inspections together and making sure that each inspection adds the value that we need the system to have. We will not lose the benefit of our prison inspectorate.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the nature of the noble Lord's question and that is why we have consulted so broadly. Since 2003, we have delivered a joined-up approach to criminal justice with the introduction of the National Criminal Justice Board and local criminal justice boards. We have seen the benefit of working together. We have learnt that we have an inter-dependent system not a silo-based system. We have to do that which will enable us to get that added value. The Gershon report and all those who have considered this matter objectively have come to the same conclusion. The measure that we are discussing seeks to add value, not to diminish it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend. Indeed, many people have criticised us because they say we are proceeding too slowly. The whole point is that we have consulted and we are listening. The consultation period has just come to an end but once the new proposals are brought forward there will be an additional opportunity to consult further. We are taking a holistic approach. We are confident that if we have the good will of those involved we will get something which is better than that which we have now.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I have the communiqué with me. First, I am delighted that it refers to degree qualifications in terms of outcome measures rather than course duration and content. But the battle, surely, is far from over, so will the Government be vigilant in protecting our economical three-year bachelors and one-year masters degrees together with the merging of the two as in the Master of Engineering, which I gather came under fire at Bergen? Secondly, given how cash strapped our universities are, will the Government ensure extra resources for Bologna-specific measures? A senior dean told me last week that in her faculty alone implementing the diploma supplement would require one full-time additional administrator.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, given that the Government predict that around 6,000 students from the European Union will be eligible for loans from the UK Government in the year 2006–07 alone, were there any discussions during the Bergen summit focusing on how those loans would be recovered years after the students have returned to their own countries?

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in his reply, the Minister did not seem to recognise the fact that suspicion about the motivation behind the death of this journalist has already been raised in Afghanistan by the Afghan police themselves. It is thought possible—I do not say that anything has been proved—that she may have been murdered as a result of pressure from clerical authorities.
	However, I wanted to raise a different question, which is to ask whether the Government can do anything to assist the work of Habiba Sarabi, who was the Minister for Women in Afghanistan and is now the governor of Bamiyan, in her efforts to build—

Lord Triesman: My Lords, as far as I am aware, we are assisting in that process. I fully endorse the importance of doing that and of ensuring that women in Afghanistan take a full role and position in Afghan society. There have been big changes in the education of girls in other respects and it is worth encouraging all of those efforts. However, with the greatest respect, I have heard several different kinds of rumour about this death. I think that speculating about a death that is under police investigation does the House no service.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is true that there has been local unrest outside Kabul, much of it around the harvesting of the poppy crop and the activities to eradicate that crop, especially in Kandahar province. Incidentally, just to dispel any rumours, we do not believe that this murder, or this death, was associated with the drugs trade. But in both the main urban centres and the rural centres there is a major effort by the 36 nations engaged in Afghanistan to try to prevent the narcotics trade from further affecting that country or the countries to which narcotics are traded—after all, it ends up on our streets as well. A big part of that must be to ensure that women in civil society take a full and honoured role.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, money has been given to a number of countries in Africa for good causes but that money has then been used for the purposes of the rulers of those countries rather than for what was intended. Should we have not only an assurance that the funds will be used for the purposes intended, but that there is an acceptance that implementation will be closely monitored?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is certainly close monitoring of the funding that the United Kingdom Government give. My noble friend will be aware that we give money in a variety of ways either for specific projects, through debt relief or through direct budget support. I know that there has been concern across the House about financial probity in direct budget support, but I assure my noble friend that we go through a process of risk analysis before we come to an agreement with a government with regard to budget support and there is robust accounting at each stage.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that we give our aid in a variety of ways—through NGOs, through programmes that we have agreed with governments, and by giving direct budget support to governments that we feel have the right kind of financial management systems in place. Noble Lords may be aware that we were going to increase our direct budget support to Ethiopia. We have put that on hold pending an investigation of what has happened recently following the elections there.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; we have not ratified the UN convention. We expect to do so by the end of this year. So far, 26 countries have ratified it but no G8 country has. Thirty countries must ratify it before it comes into force, after 90 days.
	I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord is asking me with respect to corrupt aid practices and prosecutions in the UK. I said earlier that there had been no prosecutions with respect to business engaging in corrupt practices. Those are extremely difficult. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me on corrupt practices and aid, so that I can answer his question more directly.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is quite difficult for the Government to take responsibility for money given voluntarily to organisations. However, the Disasters Emergency Committee, an umbrella organisation, took responsibility for the huge amount of money given post the tsunami, and for communicating with the public how that money has been spent. It has had meetings with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development about how it can ensure that the public's generosity is protected. I suggest that individuals who want to make a donation visit the website of individual organisations to check what procedures they have in place.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, later this afternoon, with permission, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the European Council of 16 and 17 June. The Statement will come after the first three speakers in the first debate; that is, after the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Scott.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, it has been a privilege to have been a member of Sub-Committee F during the preparation of three of the four Select Committee reports concerned with EU justice and home affairs which we are due to debate today. I pay tribute to our Clerk, Tony Rawsthorne, and our legal adviser, Valsamis Mitsilegas, for the skill with which they have steered us through our work, and thank our specialist adviser, John Abbott, for his help in our inquiry into the EU's response to terrorism after Madrid.
	I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, will speak today on the inquiry into Eurojust, and I congratulate her on the way in which she conducted that inquiry when chairing our sub-committee. I also look forward to the contribution from my noble and learned friend Lord Scott of Foscote, whose Sub-Committee E worked with my sub-committee in preparing our report on The Hague programme. It is on that report that I would first like to concentrate today.
	As your Lordships will know, The Hague programme is a five-year programme of European Union action covering the whole field of justice and home affairs. The breadth of the programme's scope demonstrates the impressive increase in co-operation at EU level in an area where only 10 years ago such co-operation as existed was almost all on an intergovernmental basis.
	For the past five years, there has been a major programme of work in the fields of immigration and asylum, police co-operation, and criminal and civil judicial co-operation, which formed the foundation of The Hague programme. Our inquiry concluded that The Hague programme was broadly on the right track. It places welcome emphasis on the need to respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and the legal traditions of member states. But it will be important that we continue to scrutinise carefully the future progress of The Hague programme to ensure that those principles are upheld. Our scrutiny concluded that there have been occasional lapses—for example, on drugs policy and crime prevention—where those principles have not been sufficiently respected.
	The Hague programme also calls for a process of evaluating policies. Our inquiry strongly endorsed a thorough and transparent evaluation of existing policies before new initiatives are pursued. Many of the proposals in The Hague programme have been the subject of previous reports by the Select Committee. There is still talk of a European Border Guard, although we remain of the view, as I understand the Government do, that the case for a centrally managed multinational force has not been made. The concept of a common European asylum system remains valid, but the failure so far to adopt the Asylum Procedures Directive shows that there are still considerable difficulties in ensuring a high level of protection in accordance with international human rights and refugee law.
	Finally, we underlined the need for better co-ordination between law enforcement authorities. It was clear to us that Europol has not yet fulfilled its potential. I hope that it can now start to punch its weight now that a new director has been appointed, after a regrettable delay.
	I am grateful for the Government's response to our report on The Hague programme, which shows a welcome measure of agreement between us. In commending our report to your Lordships, I hope that the Minister, when she winds up this debate, can give us the Government's view on the following additional points. First, how will the collapse of the constitutional treaty affect The Hague programme, which assumes ratification on the original timing? Secondly, how is the programme to be financed, given the very substantial increase of resources envisaged for the years between 2007 and 2013? Thirdly, what are the Government's priorities in this area for our presidency?
	Finally, I turn to a point to which we have reverted in a number of Select Committee reports, even before my chairmanship of Sub-Committee F. Have the Government any intention of reviewing their facility to opt-out from immigration and asylum policy, as opposed to their opt-out on borders, which has led to some difficulties—for instance, our exclusion from the Border Management Agency that is now being set up in Warsaw?
	I would now like to turn to the second report that I shall move today; namely, the EU's response to terrorism after Madrid. There were two main elements to our inquiry; that is, data exchange and EU structures for responding to terrorism. On the second, we attach importance to the principle that member states bear, and continue to bear, primary responsibility for counter-terrorism activities. But, having looked at the proliferation of committees and groups at EU level that are concerned with counter-terrorism, we were clear that there is a need for rationalisation and that this should be the primary and urgent responsibility of the Counter-terrorism Co-ordinator. We also concluded that more co-operation was required with other international agencies, especially Interpol, whose headquarters in Lyon we had the opportunity to visit.
	On data exchange—I should tell the House that we tried to reach a consensus on pronunciation, which I think that I have just broken, on whether it is "data", "dayter" or "darter"—we regard the more effective sharing of information between law enforcement agencies as crucial to the counter-terrorism effort. The objective that law enforcement authorities should have access to information in another member state, on the same basis as the member state's own law enforcement authorities, is acceptable in principle. But it is very important that its implementation should be subject to adequate safeguards.
	We were concerned about some of the proposals that the Luxembourg presidency have subsequently put forward, which seem to have totally inadequate provision for data protection. We are particularly concerned about the proposal to repeal Article 39 of the Schengen Implementing Convention, which provides that the exchange of information must be subject to a condition of compatibility with the national law of the states concerned. We also strongly oppose the abolition of the restriction on the scope of the decision to offences punishable by at least 12 months' imprisonment, which appears to ignore the very title of the framework decision, which refers to "serious offences including terrorist acts". I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House how the Government propose to carry this forward in our presidency.
	As for the Government's views on our report, I regret that these were received only on Thursday last week—one sitting day before this debate—even though our report was published on 23 March, nearly three months ago. But having had a brief opportunity to study the Government's response, I am glad to see that the Government also attach importance to better two-way co-operation between Interpol and Europol. I also welcome the hint that the Government might be open to the possibility of a data protection regime for the third pillar.
	I have one personal comment on the reception which our reports have received, both in Brussels and from other capitals. Having now chaired Sub-Committee F through three inquiries, I have been heartened by the considerable respect which the work of the European Select Committee enjoys, both in the Commission and with other national parliaments. Given the persistent preoccupation with whether we are or are not at the heart of Europe, some of which will no doubt form part of tomorrow's wider debate, I find it encouraging that our scrutiny work is widely regarded as second to none throughout the European Union.
	I look forward to hearing the Government's views on both of these reports and on the other two reports that are to be moved today when the Minister speaks. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Hague Programme: a five year agenda for EU justice and home affairs (10th Report, Session 2004–05, HL Paper 84).—(Lord Wright of Richmond.)

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my former colleague and successor, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the subject of Eurojust and the report produced by the Select Committee while I was chairman of Sub-Committee F. It is a pity that it has not proved possible to arrange an earlier debate, but at least we have managed to get it in before the first anniversary of the report's publication.
	With the indulgence of noble Lords, before I begin I want to thank in particular three people for their help to the committee on this and many other inquiries. First, I thank our clerk, Tony Rawsthorne, whose tremendous help and support I have always valued immensely; secondly, our legal assistant, although sadly no longer with us in that capacity, Dr Valsamis Mitsilegas; and, finally, our specialist adviser and old friend of the committees, Professor Jörg Monar. I also thank all my colleagues on the committee who played a full and active part during the four years that I had the great privilege of chairing Sub-Committee F.
	Eurojust is still a relatively new EU body and its work is not widely known, so it may be helpful first to explain in brief what it is and what it does. Eurojust was set up in 2002 to facilitate judicial co-operation in the EU. Each member state nominates a senior judge or prosecutor as its national member, and those 25 national members form the "college" of Eurojust. They operate full time, in an impressive headquarters in The Hague, which members of the sub-committee had the advantage of seeing when we visited Eurojust last year.
	Since its establishment, the president of Eurojust, elected by the college, has been Mr Mike Kennedy, the UK national member who has made an outstanding contribution to establishing Eurojust and getting it accepted as a key player in tackling serious international crime. It is a tribute to the work he has done and the high regard in which he is held that his colleagues have recently re-elected him as president of the college. I and all my colleagues warmly congratulate him on his reappointment.
	The role of Eurojust is to assist national authorities in investigating and prosecuting serious cross-border criminal cases. It does so by co-ordinating the activities of the national authorities and facilitating the collection of evidence. It therefore serves a very practical purpose. It is not primarily concerned with general policy on judicial co-operation, although it does convene strategic meetings on important casework topics such as terrorist activity and the use of controlled deliveries and covert surveillance in drugs trafficking cases. It is an operational body with the very practical task of facilitating the handling of complex cross-border criminal investigations and prosecutions involving several member states. This is a vital role and, in the committee's view, Eurojust meets a real and increasing need.
	One of the biggest obstacles to pursuing international criminals across borders is coping with different national legal systems and different requirements for the conduct of investigations and the collection of evidence. A police officer or prosecutor in one member state cannot be expected to be familiar with all the procedural requirements in each of the others. This often leads to long delays in obtaining even quite straightforward evidence and even to the collapse of cases, which is in the interests of no one but the criminals. Within Eurojust, a national member can talk directly to his opposite number in order to unblock a particular problem. But more than that, in complex multilateral cases, Eurojust can convene case conferences of all the parties involved, which can short-circuit lengthy bilateral negotiations.
	I am glad to say that in the time that has elapsed since we published our report nearly a year ago, Eurojust seems to have continued to establish itself as the primary forum for practical judicial co-operation within the EU. A number of developments to which we drew attention in our report have now been successfully implemented: absorbing 10 new national members following enlargement, which was accomplished smoothly as a result of the preparatory work that Eurojust had undertaken; putting in place a formal agreement with Europol about the exchange of information and agreeing data protection rules—however the word is pronounced; and implementing a case management system.
	According to Eurojust's latest annual report, the number of cases referred to it increased by 27 per cent in 2004, which is some indication of the growing confidence that national authorities have in the contribution it can make to their work. But there are still some member states, not including the UK I am glad to say, which do not make full use of Eurojust. Indeed, we were concerned to find in our inquiry that a number of member states had failed to implement important elements of the decision that set up Eurojust over six months after the relevant deadlines had expired. In July of last year, the Commission produced a report on the implementation of the decision and highlighted a raft of serious deficiencies on the part of member states. At the time the Government said that they would welcome a further report on the transposition of the decision by the new member states, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether this is in hand.
	The one area where little progress seems to have been made is in relations with OLAF, the EU's anti-fraud agency. We drew attention in our report to the lack of co-operation between Eurojust and OLAF, to the detriment of effective action against fraud involving the resources of the European Union. Eurojust's report for 2004 records that OLAF forwarded to it only three cases in that year. Eurojust clearly regards this as unsatisfactory and I hope that OLAF will make renewed attempts to improve its relations with Eurojust and make greater use of the facilities it offers.
	But this should not detract from the fact that the first three years of Eurojust's operation have been a good news story. As we said in our report, perhaps presciently as it turned out:
	"It is . . . an example of the sort of effective practical co-operation that an EU agency can provide, which is sometimes lost sight of in more ideological debates, for example in the context of the Constitutional Treaty, about the future development of the EU".
	It would be a great pity if, at a time of doubt and some disillusion about the future direction of the EU, we lost sight of the great practical contribution that a body like Eurojust can make to tackling genuinely cross-border problems in a practical and constructive way.

Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, Sub-Committee E, which until recently I had the honour to chair, was responsible for part of The Hague programme report about which my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond has spoken, and has sole responsibility for the OLAF report. So I want to devote most of my time to talking about the OLAF report with just a few remarks at the end about the part of The Hague programme report for which we were responsible.
	Like my noble friend Lord Wright and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, both of Richmond, I start by expressing my great sense of gratitude to the legal adviser to Sub-Committee E, Dr Christopher Kerse, without whose work, expertise and industry I suspect that none of the reports emanating from Sub-Committee E during my chairmanship would have been worth reading at all. A great debt is owed to him and I hope that the House recognises it, and I am sure it does.
	The importance of OLAF is not in doubt. The organisation was created in 1999 with the remit to try to combat fraud against European Union funds. It is an investigative body. It has no prosecuting powers; it simply investigates. It attempts to recover any money it finds to be due or reports cases to prosecuting authorities in the member states for criminal proceedings to be taken.
	Its investigations are either internal or external. Internal investigations are those where the suspected fraud is within an EU institution and external investigations are those where the suspected fraud is outside an EU institution but is directed at EU funds. For example, a VAT fraud or a fraud in claiming payments which are not due under the CAP scheme would be external frauds.
	In the case of external frauds, OLAF has to carry out its investigations in liaison with the investigative or police authorities of the member state in question. That must be so because OLAF has no right of its own to summon people to appear before it and answer questions and so on. That has to be done through the domestic authorities. In the case of internal frauds, all those being investigated will be employees or officers of one kind or another of some institution of the EU and so that particular problem does not arise.
	As I say, OLAF was created under a regulation in 1999 following a crisis or scandal—call it what one will—called the Eurostat crisis or the Eurostat scandal. I do not want to try to explain what it was—I am not even sure that I could—but it was that scandal which gave rise to proposals being brought forward.
	I think I have misled your Lordships. OLAF was created in 1999 to succeed a previous institution called UCLAF because that body had been so dilatory in the handling of cases that there was a huge backlog. The Eurostat crisis occurred after OLAF had been created and led to proposals for the reform of OLAF, which prompted the inquiry and report now being debated by the House.
	We thought the proposals were premature—and the Government, in their helpful response, agreed—for two reasons. First, a report from the Commission itself relating to OLAF and its activities was in preparation but had not yet been produced. When OLAF was created in 1999, one of the requirements was that after three years, in 2002, the Commission would produce a report about OLAF and its activities so that the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers could see how this newly-created fraud investigating body had been progressing. The Commission duly produced the report in 2002 but it was rejected by either or both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which said that they wanted more details of what OLAF had been doing.
	So the Commission had to go back to the drawing board and try to do better. But when it produced its proposals for reforms to OLAF, the report was still in an incomplete form; the final report had not yet been produced. We thought, as did the Government, that it would be better to await the production of that report and then, in the light of its contents, to try to work out the areas in which OLAF should be reformed and make proposals accordingly.
	The other reason why the proposals were premature was that the Court of Auditors was, at the time these proposals came forward, preparing a report on OLAF. That report, too, was thought to be imminent, but was not yet available, and it was considered odd that the Commission should be producing its proposals not yet knowing what the Court of Auditors was going to say and what, if any, recommendations it would make.
	At the time we were carrying out our inquiry we were told that the Court of Auditors report was expected to be due in the autumn of last year—that is, in autumn 2004. So in our report, which was published in July last year, we formed the conclusion that I have mentioned. We said, "This report is premature. You should have waited for the other two expected reports to be available and then formed your views accordingly".
	The Court of Auditors report expected in autumn last year has still not been produced. I am told that it is expected in autumn this year, but we shall have to see whether that turns out to be correct. The Commission's own report was produced in December last year and it was submitted to Sub-Committee E for consideration. It contained a great many valuable details about what OLAF had been doing in the three years. In fact, it was more than three years because the report covered the period up to June 2004.
	It contained some very useful details about what OLAF had been doing over the period since 1999. For example, it disclosed the total amounts involved in the investigations that OLAF had conducted over that period. The sums thought to be lost to European Union funds were something in excess of €5.3 billion. It disclosed also that its efforts had achieved recoveries from miscreants of something in the order of €100 million, with some €17 million irrecoverable because of bankruptcies, insolvencies and so on.
	It is thoroughly useful to take that kind of record into account when trying to form a view as to the success of OLAF in discharging its remit. But, of course, it was not taken into account when the proposals which are the subject of this report were formulated.
	Action on the proposals seems to have gone into abeyance in any event. That may be because these reports were awaited. But the report with the wealth of detail—including the details I have mentioned—was available in December last year and, as far as we know, still no action has been taken by the Commission in finalising its proposals or in the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament in considering their content.
	There has been no mention of this during the Luxembourg presidency, but it would be appropriate if the UK Government were to give this matter priority when they assume the presidency shortly. It is surely of very great importance that fraud against EU institutions should be the subject of proper, efficient investigative procedures.
	That is necessary not only for the obvious financial implications but also for producing confidence on the part of the citizens of the European Union—from whom, in one way or another, the money the subject of fraudulent depredations comes—that the affairs of the European Union in protecting, properly spending and looking after their money are conducted as efficiently as practicable.
	We suggest that the Government might give an indication of their attitude towards progress on the proposals for the reform of OLAF put forward by the Commission.
	Perhaps I may now make a few remarks about the parts of The Hague programme which emanated from my sub-committee. I say "my sub-committee"; I should say "Sub-Committee E".
	I do not share my noble friend Lord Wright's confidence that the Commission's proposals are sufficiently observant of the important principle of subsidiarity. The two areas of the programme we looked at were the proposals for measures in the criminal justice/criminal procedure field and in civil law and procedure. As to civil law and procedure, a number of proposals were put forward. When we considered them, it seemed to me and to the sub-committee that virtually all of them were open to serious objections on subsidiarity grounds.
	The most obvious was the proposal, which has been given the name of Rome II, to harmonise conflict of law procedures in the civil law field. Why it is necessary to harmonise this was not made clear. The Commission suggested that it was a kind of tidying-up, a kind of convenience. We wrote a report disagreeing very strongly with the notion of any harmonisation in this field. Broadly speaking, the Government, in their helpful report, agreed with that.
	One should take note that the justification put forward for this proposed measure was an argument based on convenience. I suggest that convenience, often questionable but arguable, as a basis for harmonising measures requiring all member states to bring their laws together to correspond with one another in a particular area is never enough. There must be a stronger reason than questionable convenience for putting forward changes in the civil law/civil procedure area.
	As to the criminal law and procedure area, I do not want to be rude, but it has become almost a mantra for the justification for proposals to be put forward that one is pursuing the policy of mutual recognition—that is, mutual recognition of the decrees and orders emanating from the courts of other member states. Their and our membership of the same union requires us to accord their orders respect and to follow them up. That is all very well, but it does not always fit well with the fundamental obligation of each member state to protect the essential rights of its own citizens and to try to ensure that if they are faced with criminal proceedings, the rights that they are entitled to expect are observed to as good a standard abroad in other member states as they would be able to expect here.
	That particular requirement seems to me—if I may speak entirely for myself—to be one which is not always observed in the way in which support is given by government to harmonising measures produced in this area. In particular, there is a very important Green Paper, which recently emanated from the Commission, on bail. The present position is, as your Lordships will know, that extradition without going into the merits—this is all a consequence of the principle of mutual recognition—can be imposed upon UK citizens so that they may be taken to a member state and tried on criminal charges there, with whatever incarceration in prison for the period of the delay between extradition and trial that there may be.
	The bail arrangements in a number of the states bear no resemblance to what our own citizens have become entitled to expect, and there is a crying out for some sort of remedy. This is an area where standards across the European Union are formulated at a sufficiently high level to provide the rights to which we think our citizens are entitled. So I wonder if the Government can give some assurances that also during the UK presidency progress on the bail proposals will be one of the priorities. If that is so, then a very great objection, which at the moment exists, to some of the extradition proceedings, and to some of the mutual recognition orders that are made, will be met.
	With those comments I commend to your Lordships the whole of The Hague programme, and particularly the part that my sub-committee was concerned with, and the OLAF report. I know that what is to follow when I sit down will be a government Statement—I cannot remember what the subject is, but that does not matter—but I would like to take one moment on a personal level of expressing my very great appreciation for the time that I have spent as a member of the European Union Select Committee and as Chairman of Sub-Committee E. That is something that only a few Law Lords and my colleagues get to do. It is hugely enriching of our life in this House and I am sad to say that it will soon come to an end, but I have very much appreciated it while I have been able to do it.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 16 and 17 June.
	"This European Council was essentially about two subjects: the consequences of the 'No' votes in the referendums in France and the Netherlands; and the financial perspectives, the budget ceilings for the EU for the period 2007–13.
	"In respect of the constitutional treaty, the 10 member states that had ratified were anxious that ratification continue. But realistically, given the 'No' votes in France and the Netherlands, the ratification cannot succeed unless and until those votes change. Moreover, the Dutch Prime Minister, rightly and inevitably, said frankly that there was no prospect of his bringing back the treaty for any sort of new decision in this Dutch Parliament. As a result, whatever words are used in Council conclusions, standing the results of the French and Dutch referendums, the treaty cannot proceed. It is therefore sensible, instead, to have a period of reflection, in which the critical questions as to Europe's future direction are debated.
	"On the future financing package, the UK approached the negotiations with three objectives. First, we wanted an overall budget which demonstrated a responsible and prudent approach to spending, at a time when national budgets across Europe are under strain. Secondly, we wanted a commitment to a comprehensive reassessment of the structure of the EU budget.
	"Europe faces an immense global competitive challenge. Quite apart from the established economies of America and Japan, the rise of China, India and the other Asian economies is creating a wholly new economic environment.
	"It simply does not make sense in this new world for Europe to spend over 40 per cent of its budget on the common agricultural policy, representing 5 per cent of the EU population producing less than 2 per cent of Europe's output. We are spending seven times as much on agriculture as on R&D, science, technology, education and support for innovation combined. This is not a budget fit for purpose in the 21st century. Even at the end of the next financial period—that is, by the beginning of the year 2014—we would be spending 40 per cent of the budget on the CAP. Europe just cannot wait 10 years or more for the change necessary.
	"It is in this context that the issue of the British rebate must be examined. The rebate arises because of the distortion of the budget. Over the past 10 years to 2003, France's net contribution to the European Union was 18.8 billion euros. In the next financial period—that is, 2007–13—even with the rebate, Britain would be paying around 13 billion euros more. Without it, Britain would pay nearly two and a half times as much as France, and slightly more even in money terms than Germany.
	"However, it is also true that the rebate is merely a correction mechanism, designed to address an underlying imbalance in the budget. As the European Union has expanded and Britain has become more wealthy than countries like France, it is right that it changes.
	"Our position, therefore, was not to refuse any change to the rebate, to rule out a discussion, or to disown our responsibility to pay for the enlargement of Europe we passionately support.
	"On the contrary, I made it clear that we should deal with both anomalies—the rebate and the CAP. I proposed that we have a fundamental review of the EU budget, reporting in time for us to be able—midway through the next financial period—to alter fundamentally the structure of the budget, dealing with both the rebate and the CAP. In the meantime, of course, we would ensure we paid our fair share of enlargement.
	"The presidency proposal from Luxembourg fell way short of such a solution. The terms of the review were expressed in language so vague as to be meaningless. In addition, the words meant, effectively, endorsing the 2002 CAP package up to 2013. It has been frequently said in the past week that this 2002 agreement ruled out further CAP changes, and therefore it was unfair of the United Kingdom to try to reopen it. But in October 2002, it was expressly stated that this agreement was without prejudice to the future financing arrangements and at that time the UK made it clear that on the basis of such a package there could be no change to the rebate.
	"So the review offered was inadequate. What is more, the cost to the UK of the Luxembourg proposal would be over 25 billion euros, meaning that over the next financial period instead of parity with similar-sized countries, we would have been back to, for example, a 23 billion euro deficit with France. This money, incidentally, would not have gone to the poorest countries, but been redistributed among the wealthy ones.
	"This is a deal that I simply could not have recommended to this House. It was not the right deal for Britain. It was not the right deal for Europe. Four other countries rejected it and several more made clear their dissatisfaction.
	"I fully understand the concerns of the new European countries. They want an agreement. We will do our best to secure such an agreement and to make sure that it is one that meets their needs. Britain championed enlargement. Britain will continue to do so. But let us not forget that, on any basis, around 80 per cent of CAP funds and almost 50 per cent of structural and cohesion funds will continue to go, not to the new accession countries, but to the original 15.
	"It is said that the failure to reach a deal has deepened Europe's crisis; that Europe's credibility demanded a deal. No, Europe's credibility demands the right deal—not the usual cobbled together compromise in the early hours of the morning, but a deal which recognises the nature of the crisis. This crisis is not about the failure of Europe's leaders to reach agreement with each other. The crisis is about the failure of Europe's leaders to reach agreement with the people of Europe about the issues that concern them.
	"People in Europe see the world changing around them, economically and socially, and want answers to the challenges that they face. They worry about globalisation and organised crime—not the re-weighting of votes in the European Council. If we answer these concerns, Europe will strengthen. And we need a strong Europe to bolster the strength of individual nations. The European budget should not be separate from that debate, but part of it. It is that debate that we will look forward to in our presidency".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement today—an important Statement about the future direction of the European Union. For once, she can be assured that I will not raise the latest atrocities in Zimbabwe or the closure of EU markets to produce from the third world because those critical issues were not even discussed.
	Free trade was not mentioned in pages of communiqués about ways to help Africa, and in the case of Zimbabwe, Mugabe's crimes did not even figure in the presidency conclusions. Tragically, while millions in the world face real crises, the EU leaders indulged in a kitchen-sink spat wholly irrelevant to the future of Europe and a gross distraction from the real issues. That collective failure of political leadership shames Europe.
	Out of this confusion must come some creative thinking. This is the first opportunity for such thinking and we expect tomorrow in the debate that the Leader of the House has kindly provided for the House a detailed Statement from the Government. This House, with its deep knowledge of EU issues, will want more than waffle and rhetoric from an incoming presidency, for which the Prime Minister has had years to prepare.
	I, too, will confine myself to the two issues that the leaders did manage to discuss and the Prime Minister mentioned in his Statement—the constitution and the rebate.
	In Her Majesty's Government's view, is the EU constitution dead? Yes or no? It is important to know, for much of the current presidency's conclusions seem about giving the process a kiss of life. In the Statement the Prime Minister said that,
	"whatever words are used in Council conclusions . . . the Treaty cannot proceed".
	It is worth seeing what those conclusions were. The conclusions state:
	"We consider the outcome of the referendums in France and the Netherlands do not call into question citizens' attachment to the construction of Europe"
	That is what the Prime Minister agreed to on Saturday. But what do the Government mean by that? Is it the Government's view that the people of Holland and France were bonkers to reject the treaty that the Prime Minister believes is good for the new Europe? If not, then what does that phrase actually mean?
	We now hear talk of a "constitution-lite" being the buzz phrase in the Foreign Office. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Government's policy is to cherry-pick the draft constitution and try to push through some of it without a referendum? Can the noble Baroness assure the House that, if the Government believe, in the phrase of the Council conclusions, that British citizens are so attached to the construction of Europe that ratification must go forward then the British people will first have the referendum they were promised on 5 May?
	In the promised period of reflection—only until next spring, please note—the conclusions call for,
	"a broad debate to take place in each of our countries".
	Does the noble Baroness agree that a referendum might provide that broad debate? Only six weeks ago, the Labour Manifesto said:
	"It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe".
	But how quickly our words come back to haunt us.
	How absurd it seems now for the Prime Minister to have written so recently that Britain could be a leading nation in Europe only by ratifying this drowning treaty.
	The presidency conclusions end with a classic European statement:
	"The recent developments—
	that means an inconvenient expression of popular will—
	"do not call into question the validity of continuing with the ratification processes".
	It is glaringly obvious that they do call those processes into question, and, if there are those who do not recognise that, they will end tragically by inflicting even more damage on the European Union than has already been inflicted.
	If the Prime Minister at this late hour seeks to impose that restraining and realistic hand he can count on our support. But how sad it is that the man—the Prime Minister—who rightly tells us that Europe needs a new direction was the same man who gave away our opt-out from the social chapter that is destroying European competitiveness, and did so for nothing in return. And how sad it is that the man who belatedly and rightly takes up the cudgel for reform of the absurd and indefensible CAP was the same man—the Prime Minister—who agreed to that being set in concrete for a decade as recently as 2002? If the British Government are so much against it now, why were they so enthusiastic then?
	Is not the truth that it was not until Peter Mandelson rang up and told him that it might be a good piece of spin that the Prime Minister thought of linking the UK rebate to reform of the CAP? Why was our position so ill-prepared? How was the president of France, President Chirac, able to get away with the political daylight robbery of pushing aside democratic votes condemning a flawed treaty and putting Britain in the dock? How was it that we ended up having our natural friends and allies in eastern Europe ranged against us? Was that not a spectacular own goal, after Mr Mandelson floated the fact that the UK Government were planning to help them?
	For our part, we support the Prime Minister in insisting that the British rebate can be considered only when the just cause and reason for it—the distortions of the CAP—are addressed and dealt with. Given where we now are, this should be an opportunity, but the Prime Minister begins his presidency dug in, condemned by the current presidency as,
	"seeking the failure of Europe".
	We deplore such language. We deplore the claim of Chancellor Schröder that history will judge harshly the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. What we on this side would judge harshly is not the faltering, late-coming sense of the Prime Minister, but the ostrich-like view of other European leaders that nothing has changed, nothing needs to be changed, and nothing can be changed.
	But, as we know, the world has changed. Europe has changed and the EU needs to change, and tomorrow, my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford will set out in detail how Britain must lead the way to a better European future and recover from the mistakes and self-deception that have so far marked the Prime Minister's approach to Europe.
	The Prime Minister is in an unrivalled position to set out that future, but it cannot be on the basis of a defunct treaty that only six weeks ago he was telling the country was in Britain and Europe's united interest.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I can begin, as did the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who said that he was not going to talk about Zimbabwe and then proceeded to do so, to remind the noble Lord that at the last General Affairs Council it was agreed to increase the numbers of those from Zimbabwe on the travel ban list.
	In relation to the specific two issues that were covered by the Statement, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in talking about those Council discussions as being irrelevant to the future of Europe, got it completely wrong. There is nothing more important than having a Europe which is fit for purpose. In looking at those budget discussions, and in particular at the UK position in relation to those future financing discussions, we are looking ahead to the nature of the kind of world that we—as a European Union—will need to intercede in and have influence in. The discussions that were held last weekend, and the continuing discussions on those issues, will be very important for the future of Europe.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me whether it was our view that the EU constitution was dead. The treaty was agreed by 25 nations states; it is not for any one nation to declare it dead. Yes, it is in serious difficulties—there is absolutely no doubt about that. I believe that we would all agree that the people of Holland and France voted "No" for a range of reasons. I watched with great interest the interviews with individuals after those "No" votes, and the issues that they talked about ranged from concerns about the domestic economy, immigration, asylum, and the possibility of EU enlargement. Few people actually mentioned the treaty itself.
	With respect to a referendum here in the United Kingdom, the ratification process is not abandoned, but we see no point in proceeding with an EU Bill at present. That was made absolutely clear in the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. We need a period of time to reflect—and that was made clear in the Statement that I have just repeated. But I can confirm that the constitutional treaty will be ratified in the United Kingdom only after a referendum—but we do of course need a constitution on which to vote.
	I must say that I was not surprised at the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on the social chapter. However, they are not comments that I would make to the millions of workers who have benefited from the signing of the social chapter. As a Government, we believe in the opening up of markets and in greater flexibility, but we also believe in a degree of social protection. That is our position, and will remain our position.
	We have begun the process of addressing the distortions in the common agricultural policy. The noble Lord may remember that my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett was involved most recently, in 2003, in the reform of the common agricultural policy. The biggest part of that reform was to break the link between subsidies and protection. We are well aware of the need for further reform, because we want to see a European Union budget that helps those in the poorest countries and also better reflects the different ways in which individuals contribute to the European Union economy. Our approach is to push for a reform agenda from a pro-European standpoint, which we think will have much greater influence with our European Union partners.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this is an opportunity; and that is precisely the view being expressed by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We want to see an opening-up of markets, but we also want to see transitional mechanisms that will help the poorest countries. That is part of our wider G8 agenda. It is thought that opening up those markets, giving greater access and reducing subsidies would lift some 300 million people out of poverty.
	I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has found common cause on Europe for the first time with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind if I do not draw that to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, just in case he does not see it as a career-enhancing move. I have addressed all the questions that have been raised.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I am delighted to be taking part in this debate. Until April of this year, I served on Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee, first with the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and more recently with the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, as our chair. Both brought a great deal of knowledge and their own individual charm to our discussions and guided us wisely in our deliberations.
	I have believed over the years that too little time has been given in this Chamber to the reports of the European Union Committee and its sub-committees. Many hours are spent by Members of this House in such committee work, which they take seriously and conduct thoroughly. So I am particularly pleased that time is being given during the first phase of this Session to these European Union Committee reports.
	During my work with the sub-committee, we examined in detail a number of weighty issues relating to international crime. We have explored issues surrounding migration and immigration, the pros and cons of border guards, a common European asylum system, Europol, Interpol, Eurojust and many other issues spinning off from those main themes. We have looked at terrorism in its various guises, an issue to which I shall return later.
	I wish to begin by raising an issue that has been interwoven throughout a number of our reports—the effects of our changing European world on some of the most vulnerable women and children, and their trafficking for prostitution and drug-related issues. There is no doubt but that the expansion of the European Union has exacerbated the vulnerability of some women and children. There have been known instances of women and children being trafficked for prostitution for many years. But with the expansion of the EU, the trafficking has increased significantly and, in the less economically developed EU nations, it has become more obviously linked to drugs.
	This trafficking can take the form of women carrying drugs in their bodies across borders—they are known colloquially as "mules"—or by women's bodies being used to raise money for their vile pimps or "owners", money which in turn is used to buy drugs and to join selling rings across European states. Lured from their own countries with promises of a better life and future in others, women and children find themselves in an ever-increasing pit of misery from which they cannot escape.
	In our report on the role of Eurojust, it is pointed out:
	"Europol's latest annual organised crime report records a significant growth in the EU of the cross-border activities of organised crime groups in the areas of drug-trafficking . . . trafficking in human beings, financial crimes and smuggling. Opportunities have been opened up for organised crime, as for legitimate business, by the freedoms of the internal market and the opening of borders between EU States and their eastern neighbours".
	The role of the EU agencies in combating such crime is paramount. In particular, the co-ordinating role of Eurojust in increasing co-operation between states to fight international crime is vital. In its evidence to us, the National Crime Squad gave examples Europol's initiatives that have helped to bring down gangs of people traffickers.
	One such example highlighted a Eurojust initiative that developed a strong working relationship between the NCS and the French authorities. This resulted in an effective exchange of intelligence and evidence which led to a successful operation. The co-operation also ensured that requests for intelligence from a previous people smuggling operation were quickly acted upon and that, in turn, provided the impetus for four further operations, one of which the NCS has identified as a model of good practice. We can only hope, for the sake of the victims involved, that such initiatives will grow and develop widely to encompass the whole European community.
	I am conscious, of course, that we are debating these issues against a backdrop of scepticism about European relationships and the way forward in vital areas of European policy. However, in the areas under discussion there is, one hopes, room for optimism. The Hague programme reaffirms the priority given by the European Council to justice and home affairs, which is recognised as a central concern of European citizens. It is a blueprint for EU action in this area and, as such, emphasises the protection of fundamental rights and consistent standards across the EU.
	To that end, the need for improved co-ordination between national law enforcement authorities and the development of specific EU data protection standards is important. The balancing act is between the necessity for increased protection for European citizens in a world that is increasingly conscious of acts of terrorism and their aftermath, and the individual freedoms that are so necessary in enlightened democracies—not an easy tightrope to walk.
	I turn now to the work on counter-terrorism in the European Union. Shortly after the Madrid bombings, the European Council called on member states to ensure that the optimum and most effective use was made of Eurojust to promote co-operation against terrorism. Sub-Committee F undertook a major piece of work on anti-terrorism, After Madrid: the EU's response to terrorism".
	I shall highlight some of its recommendations, the first of which is the sharing of information within the EU about efforts to thwart terrorism. The committee was strong in its view that a more effective sharing of information between law-enforcing agencies is essential to the counter-terrorism effort.
	Anyone who has read the report on the 9/11 disaster will recognise that one of the major problems encountered was the lack of co-ordination of information about terrorists and their activities before the attack and a lack of a co-ordinated strategy after the attack. The relevant authorities were working virtually in isolation and crucial pieces of information were not passed on, thus exacerbating the catastrophe. The EU must take this as a warning and develop its activities accordingly.
	The committee believes that databases of information used to combat terrorism should be established and adequately protected, and that robust back-up and recovery systems need to be in place in case they fail. It also recommends that as new systems are developed, the Commission should ensure that they are compatible so that, where necessary, data can be compared and exchanged. Additionally, there should be a clear division of responsibility between members states and the EU. The EU's role should be that of a co-ordinator, providing structures to encourage the co-operation of member states, their dissemination of best practice and their input of information to central databases.
	The committee also commented on the role of the counter-terrorism co-ordinator, whom the committee believes has a vital role in overseeing the work of the various EU groups and committees within the second and third pillars, in preventing overlap and duplication and in ensuring that their aims and objectives are delivered.
	The committee believes that this work should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by national parliaments as well as by the European Parliament. In this way, the co-ordinator could be said to be truly democratically accountable, which is absolutely necessary if he is to be respected and his role taken as seriously as it should be. I would welcome my noble friend's responses on these issues.
	Finally, your Lordships will recognise that the members of Sub-Committee F have taken the matters before them extremely seriously. Members have also, in a number of their reports, made one further point strongly. They are very conscious of the necessity for structures and activities at a European level to counter terrorism. They of course recognise that concerted action is essential to address the global problems of terrorism and international crime generally, However, they also firmly believe that any such actions must not be at the expense of fundamental human rights and would ask the European Union always to bear that in mind.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be focused on the excellent report introduced by my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond on the EU's response to terrorism after Madrid. The subject is an important one. The horrendous events in Madrid in March 2004 brought home to everyone, if that were needed, the extent to which we are all in the front line of the fight against terrorism and the willingness also of the terrorists to target large numbers of completely innocent civilians in the pursuit of their objectives.
	As in the months after Madrid, the tentacles of the plotting of those events were revealed, stretching out to other countries in the European Union and beyond. That also brought home the need to co-operate internationally much more closely and effectively than we have ever done in the past if we are to have any hope of preventing other such outrages in the future.
	International co-operation against terrorism is still in its infancy. Not so long ago, as recently as the 1990s, there was a tendency in many countries, from which this country was not exempt, to regard people plotting against foreign regimes as none of our business. That insouciance, which was, in my view, always pretty irresponsible, perished on 11 September in New York. Now co-operation is under way at a whole number of different levels: globally through the United Nations, regionally in Europe through the European Union and bilaterally and plurilaterally between different intelligence and enforcement agencies. All those forms of co-operation are needed—they are not alternatives, one or the other—but it is essential to avoid duplication and confusion and to beware of the irresistible bureaucratic tendency towards turf fighting. This report brings out those points very effectively.
	The need to dovetail efforts at national, EU and global levels is by no means special to the fight against terrorism. The same challenges arise when dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or with responding to threats from environmental degradation. It is a pity that the sharpness of the debate in this country on EU matters sometimes obscures the need for a complex multi-layered approach of this kind. Thus the argument that operational co-operation against terrorists should not, as a general rule, be channelled through formal EU machinery—a view put forward in this report and one which I share—should not be pursued as a question of political choice, but rather one of effectiveness and security. There is, in any case, a great deal that the EU machinery and its able co-ordinator Mr de Vries can and should do to strength our mutual co-operation without getting too far into operational matters, and much of it is set out in this report.
	It would be very helpful if the Minister, in replying to the debate, could tell the House how the incoming British EU presidency intends to carry matters forward in this area over the next six months following the decisions of the European Council before the weekend, how it intends to put flesh on the bare bones of the action plans that were agreed after New York and Madrid, and what are its objectives for this immediate period.
	One aspect of the EU's role not much referred to in this report, but which deserves some attention, is its capacity to push matters forward at a global level at the United Nations. The EU and its member states are important players at the UN and key supporters of the UN Secretary-General's reform programme set out in his paper entitled, In Larger Freedom. Two important proposals on terrorism will, therefore, be up for decision at the mid-September UN summit in New York at which the Prime Minister will be speaking on behalf of the European Union as well as on behalf of the United Kingdom.
	The first of those is the comprehensive strategy against terrorism which Kofi Annan first put forward in his speech last March in Madrid. The strategy consists of five elements: dissuading individuals from resorting to terrorism; denying terrorists access to funds, to weapons and to the ability to move about freely; deterring states from supporting terrorism in any form; developing state capacity to fight terrorism; and defending human rights from excessive encroachment. That strategy, which addresses the causes of terrorism as well as its symptoms, seems to me to be one that could be endorsed by all participants at the September summit and most particularly by the members of the European Union.
	The second important proposal is to fill the gap in the existing international conventions against terrorism by accepting a binding commitment to outlaw any acts targeting innocent civilians and non-combatants. For far too long the debate at the UN has been bogged down in a discreditable wrangle over definitions. It is surely now high time to break out of this deadlock and to make it clear, beyond peradventure, that no cause, however laudable in itself, justifies actions such as suicide bombing. The need to fill that gap is as much a political need as it is a legal one. If the UN were now able to turn its face definitively and unambiguously against such practices, it could advance the cause of finding solutions to some of the world's most intractable disputes, for example, in Palestine and Kashmir.
	It would be most helpful if the Minister in reply could say how the United Kingdom, as holder of the EU presidency, intends to deploy the EU's considerable influence in the period between now and the September summit to achieve decisions on those two proposals.
	I conclude with a more general point about the EU as I shall, unfortunately, not be able to participate in tomorrow's general debate. The European Union is going through a particularly rough patch just now, but just because the EU has hit some serious internal difficulties does not mean that the rest of the world is standing still, waiting for us to resolve them, as I believe we will. Nor does it mean that we can afford to let our wider interests go by default in the meanwhile. It is surely particularly important at this juncture to pursue vigorously those aspects of foreign policy on which we agree and on which we share common cause. The fight against terrorism is prominent among such matters.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have also served on Sub-Committee F under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. It is a great privilege to be on that committee and on the main EU Select Committee. It gives us an opportunity that is second to none to contribute to the work of the House.
	I have also heard people who are not from this country pay strong tributes to our scrutiny of European legislation. I have heard it said that some of our reports are translated into other languages, and I have heard people express the wish that their own parliament should adopt the same procedures as we do. Maybe we should not pat ourselves on the back, but, if others pat us on the back, so much the better.
	I want to start by making four points. It is clear that terrorism is global. It is a serious threat that comes from many countries and which we must fight with all the resources at our disposal. As my noble friend Lord Corbett said, it is also clear that terrorism is relatively cheap for terrorists compared with the rather larger costs that we have to incur to fight terrorists. That is the way the world is.
	It is clear that to combat terrorism effectively member states of the EU must retain primary responsibility for anti-terrorist measures. The EU has an important part to play but the present arrangements whereby the EU tackles terrorism are far too complex to be as effective as they might be. They need to be simplified so that they can work as well as was the intention. It is very clear that as regards any measures against terrorism it is important that we get the right balance between the civil liberties of the individual and the measures which are necessary to protect us. It is very important that the hearts and minds of those who are inclined to be terrorists, or to sympathise with terrorists, should be considered so that we can deal with the problems at source.
	This country has probably had more experience of tackling terrorism, given the situation in Northern Ireland, than any other EU country. However, the problems facing Spain due to ETA probably give it the second largest body of experience of tackling terrorism. It is gratifying and understandable that the UK is playing its full part in the anti-terrorism measures of the EU. One of the key factors is building trust between the different agencies that deal with terrorism. Where that trust breaks down information will not be exchanged and the co-operation will be less than it should be. I understand that to help the Government of Croatia—which is not yet a member of the EU but is hoping to be—to capture the war criminal, General Gotovina, Britain provided security help to Croatia. However, the presence of certain people in Croatia was leaked to the newspapers, endangering the safety of those people. Of course, co-operation cannot continue on that basis. There has to be trust between all the agencies that are co-operating to tackle terrorism. Nowhere is that more important than within the EU. It ought to be possible to achieve it there.
	It is, of course, clear that the exchange of information and of data bases is crucial to all that. I appreciate—and the committee realised this—that there are problems regarding the transfer of information and that there is a need to have proper parliamentary scrutiny of such information. You cannot just pass on information without proper security and proper safeguards.
	I note that the Europol co-ordinator's post was left vacant for eight months during the time we were carrying out our investigation. It says something about the inability of European governments to deal with a very serious problem that they left such a crucial post unfilled, I believe because of national rivalries. The job description of the co-ordinator was not even clear. The committee came very firmly to the conclusion that in order to tackle terrorism the EU Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator had to concentrate on internal co-ordination within the EU rather than on external representation regarding how the EU tackles matters.
	On our visit to Interpol we were impressed by the professionalism of its approach and the way that it dealt with many of the problems that it encountered, but with rather fewer resources than Europol has. I believe that when Europol was established, not enough thought was given to how it should co-operate with Interpol and how to get the balance of responsibilities right. We made a mistake. It is very difficult to undo that mistake now, but I do not think that we got the matter right. Perhaps we can move towards sorting that out a little better.
	The problem of terrorism cannot be confined to the EU. The threats of terrorism within the EU often come from outside so co-operation between Interpol and Europol is essential. I hope that Europol will do better than it has done up to now because we know that the key co-operation has to be not just within the EU but between the EU and other countries. As I say, that means co-operation between Europol, Interpol and the EU.
	My noble friend Lord Corbett mentioned fraudulent passports. I was astonished to hear that in almost every terrorist case fraudulent passports had been used and that even Britain with its experience of these matters was not keeping the kind of records of fraudulent passports and passing them on that might have been the case. However, I understand from the Government's response to our report that that has been put right and that our co-operation is now being given at the right level. However, if other countries are not co-operating with Interpol on fraudulent passports, we are missing a good opportunity to make the situation safer. So even if our Government's response is a good one, I hope that we can use our influence with other governments to make them co-operate on that matter.
	I make two further points, and my noble friend Lord Corbett mentioned at least one of them. It is disturbing how inexpensive it is for terrorists to carry out their business. Indeed, they do not need much money. All they need are a few dedicated people. With a little knowledge they can make bombs at very little cost that have devastating and terrifying consequences. We have already heard that the Madrid bombings cost so little to prepare that any of us could probably have afforded to finance such an operation. It is terrifying that that can be done so cheaply. The cost of countering such terrorism is high, but we cannot shirk from putting up the money to deal with it because our safety is important.
	I finish with a point that has been referred to already; that is, the need to understand better what motivates a terrorist. In Northern Ireland we spent a long time studying that. I believe that we understood pretty well what was going on. Indeed, the peace process and the Belfast agreement were landmarks because they represented an understanding by the British Government and the Irish Government of what Northern Ireland terrorism was about. That was converted into political demands and not terrorist demands. That was surely very important.
	We are nowhere near being in the same position as regards the more recent terrorist threats. We do not even know what the people who bombed the trains in Madrid want. Perhaps they were sending a signal but we do not know the full extent of the signal. It is important that we begin to understand, or try to understand, what makes people so alienated that they are willing to commit suicide in furtherance of a cause. We need to understand better that cause and how we can, as it were, engage with those people—I do not mean collaborate but engage—to see whether political ends can be stated clearly so that we can engage politically and divert people who might otherwise become terrorists into making political demands which we can then debate with them.
	I believe that the hearts and minds argument is crucial. It is not so easy to engage with and it is a matter which can probably be tackled better nationally than internationally and better by Britain than EU-wide, partly because of our experience. However, it is as important as any of the other measures against terrorism which are contained in our report and which are being practised in the European Union.

Lord McNally: My Lords, several noble Lords have commented on the confusion of having two Peers from Richmond. All that I would say is that I would never think of the noble Lord, Lord Wright, as a sweet lass of Richmond Hill; whereas I may well consider my noble friend Lady Harris in that context.
	Although I covered home affairs from these Benches for six years from 1997 to 2003, much of the work in these reports came to me as fresh. As such, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that within government, that exercise by committees of this House is not seen as an irritant or a time-consumer. One thing that struck me both reading the reports and listening to the debate was what an enormous resource in developing policy it is having the experience and expertise of those committees to consider matters in that way.
	It is a fortuitous accident that the debate takes place on the day of the Prime Minister's Statement on the European Council, because the debate puts it into a proper context. For me, this is the other Europe, in counterpoint to the headlines in our tabloid press reading, "It's War with France", and the rest of the rubbish that we have read during the past few days.
	The debate illustrates two important aspects. The first is the real engine-room work being done in Europe on a matter of very great importance. It was interesting for those of us who were present for the Prime Minister's Statement that he coupled concern about organised crime with globalisation as the two issues most of concern to European citizens. We might all debate whether that is right, but it was interesting that the Prime Minister made that coupling.
	The second point, to which I have just referred, is the prestige that its reports bring to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that we must not blow our own trumpets on these matters but, as I have never been a member of one of these committees, perhaps I can blow away. One of these famed Eurocrats, not a Brit, said to me that when House of Lords reports were published, they were instantly snaffled by other delegations and groupings in Brussels because of their high quality and reputation.
	Returning to my initial question to the Minister, I hope that that will embolden the Government as part of their strategy to respond to the crisis of confidence in European matters to trust Parliament more and to think much more laterally and excitingly about how this Parliament can be brought into the scrutiny of European affairs. That can only be to the benefit of promoting better understanding of Europe and, as I mentioned earlier, good governance.
	One thing that has always made me a passionate European—if noble Lords did not know that before, let me say, now that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has gone, that that is what I am—and one of the great things about Europe, has been that it was not just a trade club. Part of the price of membership, at entry, was a commitment to democracy, a recognition of human rights and a commitment to the rule of law. It is important that we keep that to the forefront.
	Now that we are enlarging to 25 and 27, as one of the witnesses says very frankly, that enlargement brings with it the dangers of greater fraud and of a greater impact of organised crime. It is often no help to Europe to have a rather patronising view of the new members, to say, "Well, we do not expect the rule of law to operate in country X quite as it does in the other parts of Europe". Nothing could be a greater danger to Europe's reputation than to tolerate in new and applicant states sub-standard systems of law, sub-standard recognition of human rights or sub-standard tolerance of corruption. We must use their membership to ensure that as well as observing proper trade practices, and the rest, that their legal systems and systems of law enforcement are to the highest European standards. That is another single market that we should be enforcing, arguing for and helping.
	One of the key messages that has come through from speaker after speaker today is that, whatever struggles we may have for European unity at the political level, there is already an active single market in people trafficking, drug-trafficking, money laundering and organised crime. We must put in place ways to respond to that. In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Wright, encouragingly referred to the Hague programme as an impressive increase in co-operation. As such, I shall be interested to see what priority pushing the Hague programme will be given during the British presidency.
	My noble friend Lady Harris mentioned Eurojust and its role in promoting judicial co-operation. That could be of particular importance with the new entrants and the tackling of organised crime. Several noble Lords referred to OLAF. Here, I found myself instinctively with the noble Lord, Lord Shaw: I want it to be as independent as possible. Perhaps the Minister would explain again why the Government are being rather negative in their approach to what could be an important agency.
	Again, speaking as a pro-European, nothing can do greater damage to the European cause that the idea that corruption goes unchecked and but there is widespread inefficiency in checking it in Europe. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, said, much of this is about creating confidence among the citizens of Europe in their institutions.
	Much was said on terrorism. I have one genuine inquiry. Is there sufficient EU/US co-operation on exchange of information on terrorism, or do the Americans still not trust all the Europeans, or vice versa? An initiative could be taken there.
	I shall finish on a point that touched me very much in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. As a pro-European I take pride in how Europe has been instrumental in extending democracy, freedom and human rights across our Continent. But what a shame it is that, for countless young women from eastern Europe, freedom has brought with it what the noble Baroness rightly described as the "pit of misery" that people trafficking and prostitution create. Perhaps noble Lords saw the dramatic docu-play by Channel 4 on the subject.
	That issue illustrates yet again that, in the battle against crime and terrorism, the concept of a national response is plainly absurd and the need for a co-ordinated European response is beyond peradventure. From what I read of the reports, progress is being made, but any good teacher would write at the bottom, "Must try harder".

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I shall speak for the Opposition on the four European Union Committee reports. I thank the committee members for their undoubted hard work, having produced these very thorough reports. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that your Lordships' EU reports are highly respected worldwide. As noble Lords know, my brief is foreign affairs and international development, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I am not as familiar with home affairs and the legal aspects of these reports as they are, although as a former MEP I can declare an interest.
	The simplest way of dealing with these detailed volumes is to speak about each in turn, if I may take the opportunity to probe the Government on their next steps regarding the issues raised in the reports. I shall then concentrate most of my remarks on the report regarding terrorism, as have many noble Lords. That is partly because it is the only report on which the Government have not commented. I wish to ask the Minister to clarify only a few issues, as in the limited time available it would be impossible to cover all the points in these detailed reports; otherwise, I fear, we would be here for many more hours.
	There is no denying that we have seen a substantial growth in international terrorism in recent years. As the report points out, such action threatens not only the lives and well-being of citizens but also the foundations of democracy. It is important that in complying with measures flowing from the European Council's Declaration on Combating Terrorism, we do not forget the latter and that our response to terrorism is proportionate to the threat posed.
	The report's main focus was information exchange; that was identified at the special meeting of the European Council on 25 March 2004 as an area in which further work was required. The findings of that and previous reports show that the UK is very good, even excellent, at sharing intelligence. However, it is also clear from the report that some countries do not fulfil their part in intelligence sharing. If we are to win the fight against terrorism, countries other than our own must substantially contribute their data. What are the Government doing to promote information exchange?
	I should also like to ask the Government about data protection of the information that we are exchanging. The report raises many questions about the adequacy of our data protection. Do the Government agree with the report? Do they think that there should be a common EU framework of data protection for the third pillar?
	The report also calls into question the auditing powers of national data protection authorities. Its conclusion states:
	"It is important that national data protection authorities have sufficient audit powers. We regret that in the United Kingdom the Information Commissioner does not have such powers and recommend that this is reviewed".
	Will the Government undertake to conduct such a review?
	I should like to draw attention to that report's conclusion regarding lost and stolen passports, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Dubs. The evidence gathered in making the report shows that many member states do not notify Interpol of lost and stolen passports. That goes back to my earlier point that such systems work only if we all contribute. We need to be careful not to throw all our resources into new initiatives at the expense of old, tried-and-tested methods of prevention. Have the Government plans to remedy that problem?
	The report concerning the role of Eurojust was introduced very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I was heartened to learn that the committee concluded that it had made an excellent start. It was also encouraging to note that, since the publication of the report on Eurojust, Norway has concluded and agreed the text of a draft co-operation agreement. Let us hope that the exchange of information is not one-sided, as it appears to be with the United States.
	The report raises the issue of the European Public Prosecutor. We are concerned that, if Eurojust is given the power to take binding decisions on which jurisdiction should prosecute in cases of cross-border offences, it will become a quasi-prosecutorial authority. Such a power would almost make it a European Public Prosecutor. Will the Minister clarify the Government's position and state how they feel about such a change?
	That leads me on to the report regarding OLAF, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Scott. I am very concerned about the lack of co-operation between Eurojust and OLAF. I note in a letter from Caroline Flint, which has been made available, that the Government feel that that is also an issue and that,
	"a first step could be a formal framework for co-operation".
	How are the Government progressing with the issue and what else do they propose to do to make certain that the relationship between the two organisations runs more smoothly?
	I feel that it is a little late now to turn to the report on The Hague programme, on which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wright, at the start of the debate. It is possibly the most detailed report and contains such thorny issues as asylum, migration, border security, police co-operation and various aspects of the law. It is my understanding, however, that we are expecting an asylum Bill later this Session—as, it seems, we do every Session—so I shall leave this part of the debate to my noble friend Lady Anelay, who will, no doubt, raise all the important matters during the passage of the Bill.
	I hope that we never have a repeat of the Government's behaviour of withholding from Parliament the drafts of The Hague programme prior to its adoption by the European Council, as it is essential that we should be able to scrutinise such important proposals. I look to the Minister for her assurance that such a situation will not arise again.
	Finally, I congratulate the committees and their chairmen on producing such interesting and important reports, which no doubt will give the Government food for thought. We look forward to their conclusions.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this has been a thoughtful debate and I thank the scrutiny committee for its constructive reports. In particular, they were chaired so elegantly, with such consummate skill, by the Lords Richmond—that is, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright—and the noble Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, to whom I should like to say that we very much regret any diminution of his attendance or participation because, of course, we would be bereft without his skill.
	The committee has had the advantage of a very thorough debate today. The subjects of the reports are very good examples of successful EU co-operation in justice and home affairs, which is important to the safety and well-being of our citizens. As my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen said, I am very glad that we have had this opportunity to discuss the reports in this very full way. My noble friend Lord Corbett rightly emphasised the need for co-ordination and co-operation between international agencies, particularly in relation to the use of fraudulent passports. My noble friend Lord Dubs emphasised the need for proper safeguards.
	I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we very much value the committee's work and endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Dubs that the committee's work is applauded on the international stage. I do not hesitate to tell noble Lords that I often bask in applause when abroad that falls as a result of the committee's work. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in her time has had a similar experience.
	During our presidency of the EU, the Government are committed to delivering the justice and home affairs agenda set out in The Hague programme and in the action plan on combating terrorism. Most of the proposals in The Hague action plan—a non-binding frame of reference based on The Hague programme—can be taken forward under existing treaties. They will be implemented in full in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on what will happen in relation to the constitutional treaty, the work on that issue will continue.
	I know that the committee has been concerned about the presidency priorities. There is a full agenda already set for the second half of the year in the CT action plan, The Hague action plan and the drugs action plan. Within that, we will focus on priority measures that have a practical benefit for EU citizens and add value to the efforts of member states in tackling terrorism and organised crime, and in better managing migration. We intend to make significant progress on the framework decision on telecommunications data and the European arrest warrant. We also will complete peer evaluation on counter-terrorism efforts in the Union and will look to introduce a counter-terrorism strategy.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, reminded us, Eurojust is providing practical operational assistance to improve our effectiveness in tackling cross-border organised crime. For example, in March 2004, it brought together a group of member states to discuss an organised criminal group engaged in people and drug trafficking. Eurojust helped to co-ordinate the UK and German investigations and to gather evidence from other member states. That led to arrests being made in the United Kingdom for the facilitation of illegal immigration. Further arrests were made in Germany where a quantity of heroin was also seized. It is real, practical, functional work.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, asked whether the Government intend to consider OLAF reform proposals during the UK presidency. I want to reassure him that we do, now that we have the completed OLAF evaluation report. We expect the Court of Auditors' report on OLAF to be published very soon. We will then have the evidence that we need to consider the proposals and we are keen to take that forward during the UK presidency. Therefore, it is right that OLAF—the EU's anti-fraud office—takes an active role in the fight against fraud. It has worked hard to improve its efficiency. It is estimated that it has been instrumental in the recovery of about €100 million. Therefore, it was right that the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, concentrated his remarks on its activities.
	The Hague programme represented an excellent negotiating outcome for the United Kingdom. It includes a welcome focus on delivering measures that will have practical effects on the lives of EU citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, asked how much we will spend and what it will cost. The Commission has proposed three new financial frameworks to fund justice and home affairs work from 2007 to 2013. The framework envisages a significant increase in funding to €9 billion, which is three times the amount that is currently spent. We support an increase but we will scrutinise the funds with EU partners to ensure that they are consistent with The Hague programme. We will make progress in that area a priority for our presidency.
	We very much welcome the continued emphasis on counter-terrorism in The Hague programme. We agree with the committee that responsibility for the protection of citizens lies primarily with individual member states, but, since the introduction of the action plan to combat terrorism in March 2004, the EU has demonstrated that it can help to identify good practice and vulnerabilities; that is, through the peer evaluation process of all 25 member states; through raising understanding of key issues—for example, critical infrastructure protection, terrorism financing and radicalisation; through promoting common standards, which we can see in aviation security; and also through encouraging capacity building in priority third countries.
	Her Majesty's Government support the work of the Secretary-General and the high-level panel in their work to develop a global response to the very real threat of international terrorism, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, highlighted. We are playing an active role in the pursuit of the comprehensive convention, while seeking a mutually acceptable solution to the controversial area of defining terrorism. We welcome the recent agreement of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wright, also raised the proliferation of CT committees and groups. The EU CT effort is very broad, but it reflects the complexity of the structures with which we now have to deal. We will work very closely with the presidency to ensure an effective EU response.
	The work that Mr de Vries will do in that regard will be extremely important. We have agreed that COREPER will act as a co-ordinating body, which we will support. We will try to use our presidency to encourage member states to sign and implement the convention together with other international treaties while seeking greater EU and UN co-operation. We agree with the committee that tackling terrorist financing poses significant challenges. But the work to combat terrorist financing can play an important role as part of the wide counter-terrorism effort, particularly in identifying networks, destroying their operations and assisting investigations.
	It is right that we have also mentioned today how little money some of those terrorist activities will need. EU member states face the same threat from international terrorism and are affected by each other's vulnerabilities. Terrorist networks operate internationally with attacks that are often organised in one country but are directed at another, which the noble Lord, Lord Wright, raised in his remarks. Working together in the EU—now at 27 countries, with Romania and Bulgaria—in focus groups and bilaterally is essential if we are to reduce the threat from international terrorism to which we are vulnerable.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised counter-terrorism co-ordination, on which, as I have already mentioned, Mr de Vries is working. We intend to make good progress during our presidency to drive forward implementation of the action plan to improve understanding of the key issues through thematic COREPER sessions and to give focus and structure to the EU's future counter-terrorism work by introducing an overarching strategy, together with a revised action plan, towards the end of the year. We firmly believe that the EU has a vital role to play in combating international terrorism.
	On police co-operation, Europol has been underused, and I endorse the comments in that regard. It should be made more effective without being given new, coercive operational powers, a matter about which I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is concerned. The Hague programme focus on intelligence-led policing and removing barriers to information exchange will lead to the better management and analysis of information and encourage greater sharing of information with Europol. We believe that that will enable us better to target effective operations against organised criminals. The introduction during our presidency of the European criminal intelligence model in support of Europol's forward-looking organised crime threat assessment will provide a valuable support for this process and encourage member states to share relevant intelligence with Europol. The bilateral agreements for third countries and the commitment made by the Europol director to work more closely with Interpol will bolster the EU's external law enforcement co-operation capacity.
	At its last Interpol European regional conference, the newly appointed director of Europol made a commitment to work closely with the Secretary-General of Interpol on developing closer working relations and co-operative measures. The incoming UK presidency chair of the Europol management board has already highlighted the importance of Europol's external relations, particularly with Interpol, as a key area of development during the UK tenure. Europol and Interpol have agreed to work with the United Kingdom on the development of a common intelligence model.
	The principle set out in The Hague programme of availability should, with appropriate safeguards—I know that noble Lords are anxious about them—to protect sensitive sources and methods, govern the exchange of data between law enforcement bodies, and should also guide, but not dictate, the way that security and intelligence service information is exchanged. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to an issue raised by the committee on the use of the existing databases. I can assure her that we agree with the importance of looking at and using what we have, but a group of technical experts is now being set up to report before the end of the UK's presidency. The group will take this on as one of its guidelines when making recommendations on the implementation of the principle of availability.
	We also agree with the committee and with noble Lords that information exchange should take place within a common set of rules and standards. High standards already exist, but we welcome any extra certainty that the Commission's forthcoming proposal for a framework decision on data protection in the third pillar could bring. What role a central authority should play in supervising data exchange is part of the ongoing Commission consultation on data protection on the third pillar.
	On data retention, the Government welcome what has been said both by the committee and in this debate and endorse the view that the proposed instrument on this subject will be a valuable tool in fighting terrorism. But we also believe that the prevention and detection of crime more generally is a public interest for which data should be retained. It has proved invaluable in establishing the facts in cases such as Soham, Omagh and the murder of Damilola Taylor.
	In the area of asylum and immigration, we share the same objectives as other member states: to encourage legal migration for economic and other purposes; to provide a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution, and to prevent abuse of our immigration control procedures. None of us acting alone can successfully meet the challenges of managing migration. We welcome The Hague programme's emphasis on helping third countries to improve their capacity for migration management. During our presidency we want the EU to play a stronger role in managing migration internationally by improving the capacity of developing countries to protect refugees in their regions of origin, ensuring that economic migration to developed countries is managed to complement and not to damage the needs of developing countries. We will also be working in partnership with countries on the EU's eastern and southern borders better to control migration flows.
	We want also to use our presidency to improve EU performance on readmission agreements, to take forward measures to improve the security of EU external borders, to improve asylum co-operation and to build on the EU's common principles for integration. We have not given up our ability to determine UK asylum and immigration policy to Brussels. We will retain our opt-in and frontiers protocols which allow us to choose which EU measures we participate in and to carry out immigration checks on our borders.
	We are pleased that The Hague programme recognises that mutual recognition should continue to form the basis for further criminal and civil judicial co-operation. This will ensure that member states will retain their distinct and diverse legal systems while improving co-operation and bringing more criminals to justice. Moreover, I understand absolutely the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, in relation to the use to which mutual recognition could be put. I want to reassure him that we are going to be vigilant in that regard.
	Approximation of criminal procedure law is not a precondition for mutual recognition. But we recognise that common minimum standards in some areas can enhance mutual confidence and facilitate the application of mutual recognition. We also support work that promotes the understanding of different legal systems and increases trust between them, which I know was just what the noble and learned Lord sought to illustrate in his erudite remarks on the tension between the two.
	The committee raised the issue of bail, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, in our debate. The Government believe that a legislative initiative on bail would be worthwhile as it would promote the fair treatment of EU residents facing criminal proceedings by ensuring that pre-trial custody is used only in appropriate cases. The Commission is expected to publish a legislative proposal later this year.
	Finally, we welcome the emphasis on continuing to provide Eurojust with the necessary powers effectively to aid judicial co-operation within the EU, but we are really pleased, as I think was the committee, that no reference is made to the European public prosecutor as we remain unconvinced of the need for one. I hope that also gives the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, the reassurance she seeks.
	A huge number of additional issues have been raised. Since I am pushed for time, I shall skate through and try to deal with one or two. Perhaps I may turn first to the issue of independence raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shaw and Lord McNally, in relation to OLAF. The debate about the future of OLAF has become intertwined with the establishment of the European public prosecutor. We will return to the subject of the EPP if and when a formal proposal for its creation is brought forward, but in the mean time that possibility should not distract the Commission from the need to consider ways in which OLAF can be made more effective in the fight against fraud. No doubt the forthcoming report will enable us to do that, but at the moment noble Lords will recall that OLAF was brought into the Commission for the purpose of allowing it to draw strength and to foster better understanding. There is a real opportunity to continue doing that, but through the audit which will enable us to do so, we need to assess whether it will remain the best way forward.
	In my final minute I am trying to choose which answer I should give because there are so many. I shall respond to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in relation to EU/US counter-terrorism co-operation. Perhaps I may say first how important we believe that linkage to be in the fight against international terrorism. The UK presidency will seek to use its Troika with the United States, and the next presidency, to its full effect so as to bring about some movement on this. The United States delegations are invited to EU meetings at all levels, including the Justice and Home Affairs Council. So we hope that there will be real opportunities for us to work energetically.
	In conclusion, effective international action in co-operation with our EU and overseas partners is one of the keys to delivering vital domestic objectives on counter-terrorism, organised crime, asylum, immigration and access to justice. The Hague programme and its associated action plans represent a real opportunity to improve the freedom, security and justice enjoyed by United Kingdom citizens, both at home and abroad, and the Government are determined to make the most of the opportunity.
	I thank noble Lords who have worked so hard on this agenda. I know that their industry will not stop now.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a comprehensive, helpful and beautifully timed response. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this useful and wide-ranging debate. I do not wish to delay the House longer, except to make two points.
	First, there has been a great deal of talk about the relationship between Europol and Interpol, with which I totally agree. I am grateful for the encouraging comments made by the Minister in relation to that. When we visited Lyon we discovered that there is a Europol liaison officer in place at Interpol. I hope that that will help the future relationship between the two organisations.
	Secondly, with permission, I should like to give your Lordships a brief history lesson, which I would otherwise have left to that great historian, much missed in the House, the late Lord Russell. I am sure that he would have wanted to tell your Lordships that when a medieval sovereign took up residence on the banks of the Thames at a place called Sheen, he also held the title of Earl of Richmond—in Yorkshire of course—and decided that he would change the name of the palace at Sheen to the Palace of Richmond. I shall probably get into trouble with my local community, but I think I have to give precedence to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I commend the report to the House.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order, but I echo part of what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, because this order is a bit previous. There is a need for much greater collaboration and joined-up policy-making between the relevant agencies, particularly the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The Housing Executive has recently completed a comprehensive accommodation assessment of the needs of Irish Travellers, which is intended to develop a programme of accommodation schemes, including service sites, grouped housing and transit sites. In the mean time the Department of Social Development is seeking to provide legal sites for encampments.
	One of the problems—as in England and Wales—is that of local councillors. Of course they welcomed this order at the consultation stage, but they are reluctant partners in implementing it. They are not providing more sites, which is unfortunate. I was gratified that the Minister said that certain of these provisions would not be implemented until there was greater provision. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, it would have been better to have this order when a more comprehensive policy had been finalised. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is concerned that the order would criminalise what is currently the civil offence of trespass. We must remember that the particular character of Irish Travellers was recognised in the protection of them as a distinct community in the 1997 Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order.
	Has there been greater consultation with the Department of Social Development to find out what the Travellers themselves want to do? It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to say that they want to be happy wanderers, but when they want to stop for a bit or even a prolonged stay, have there been discussions to discover what they want?
	I also echo the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, of how the facilities at sites in Northern Ireland compare with sites in England and Wales. What progress is being made with district councils in Northern Ireland to provide more sites? It would also be useful to know how certain aspects of the order compare with England and Wales. In England, if a person has been asked to leave a site and does not, can a constable arrest him without a warrant? What is the maximum penalty in England?
	We on these Benches will reluctantly support the passing of this order because we can do nothing else, but it typifies the sort of treatment Northern Ireland legislation gets—it is hurried, it is quick and it is take it or leave it. That is not satisfactory. I have said this many times before. Ministers have been looking at how to improve the scrutiny of Northern Ireland legislation, but they have not come to us to say how they intend to do that, or make suggestions, or even ask our opinions. I look forward to the day when they might, in the near future, say how we might do a better job as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will do my best to answer the questions, although I want to knock one thing on the head straightaway: we are not bouncing this issue on your Lordships' House. There was a public consultation paper in September 2003; that is 18 months—almost two years—ago. That was a public policy paper. There followed a formal consultation on the order in October last year. That included consultation with representatives of the Travellers.
	This is not an easy issue anywhere, whether in Great Britain, the island of Ireland north or south, or the rest of Europe. There are people whose cultural heritage is a nomadic lifestyle. That is not an illegal activity. However, the interests of the settled community have to be taken into account. I understand that this is not an issue in Northern Ireland as I have checked, but it is in England—as is well known from issues raised in this House—but it has got to the point where many Travellers have purchased land, so it is their own land that they are on. But they are in flagrant breach of the planning laws, and that is usually in the green belt, on the edge of the urban area, so it is not necessarily beautiful land. We are not talking about areas of outstanding natural beauty or the national parks. There are some really difficult issues.
	The 2001 census indicated—in so far that the census can be accurate regarding Travellers—that there were 1,710 Travellers in Northern Ireland, which is likely to be an underestimate. The responsibility of the councillors is not to provide the sites. I understand that that was transferred over to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It is a bit like the problem we have in England where there used to be a statutory requirement on every local authority to provide a site with managed pitches. The previous administration—I am making a party point about this—removed that in the late 1980s. That caused untold problems. Many have continued to provide pitches; others have said that it is nothing to do with them. They then get encampments, and their citizens, their council-tax payers, are up in arms: "What are you doing about this?". The council replies, "It's the Government's job". Well, it is not the Government's job. These issues are much better taken locally.
	As far as the Equality Commission's views are concerned—and I want to be careful what I say because we respect very much what the Equality Commission does and its activities—this order does not make a nomadic life illegal. I want to make that absolutely clear.
	The consequences of a nomadic life can consist of trespassing on someone else's land, which may be business land. One of the issues relating to businesses is that Travellers have turned up and been moved and have been paid for their convenience, or inconvenience, of moving. So there have been some real difficulties there. These also impinge on the planning process. We need more sites; there is no question about that. More pitches are required. There is an active programme under way both for establishing some permanent sites and pitches and—at the request of the nomadic Travellers—for some transit arrangements where they can stay for maybe four or five weeks. They do not want to stay; they want to keep on the move.
	One also has to take account of the cultural sensitivities of the location of the sites and their management. I asked about this issue; I will not share all my thoughts, but I was told: "No, Minister, it may not be what you are thinking. It is that some of the families do not like living next to one another". So there are these issues to be taken into account. We would be flying in the face of reality if these issues were not taken into account. This is one of the reasons why the Minister, David Hanson, has been reluctant to put a date on this and wants to make sure that we first have the administrative and legal power from Parliament having approved the order in both Houses. When we are ready to move with the legal requirements, we can move at the signature of a Minister to a commencement order. But we will not do it until we are satisfied that we have transit sites and a better permanent arrangement. There are cases—I do not know whether there are six; it could be five or seven—that are unreasonable. A "vehicle" is something with an engine. A vehicle with a caravan probably counts as one vehicle. I am speaking as a reasonable person, not a lawyer—but if a caravan cannot move without an engine, it is probably not a vehicle.
	There are cases where the police could move an encampment from the side of the road to another area at the side of a road. There may be nowhere reasonable for an encampment to be moved to. Therefore, there is still an almost unauthorised situation, which can be difficult for the police.
	Two elements of the order—Articles 3 and 5—are slightly different in that one gives the power to move on one vehicle camped in an unauthorised fashion where, within a short distance, there is a reasonable alternative site. That is wholly reasonable for both the landowner and the occupiers of the land. The situation is slightly different with a greater number of vehicles.
	I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in the debate the other week; it was also implied in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We are happy to discuss the matter. The Secretary of State will make himself available imminently to have discussions with and to listen to Members of your Lordships' House with an interest in Northern Ireland affairs. I have alerted him to the fact that this is an issue that we will seek to address as positively as we can in the way in which legislation is put through this place. However, this statutory instrument is no different, in some respects, from other statutory instruments. It is not primary legislation, which is the root cause of the problem. Even the other place cannot table amendments to statutory instruments, but we can seek to amend primary legislation. That is wholly reasonable.
	Notwithstanding that issue, it is true that we need councils to co-operate and, as we speak, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is having discussions with councils about various sites. I will not list them because I am not sure what information is publicly available. However, we are not having secret discussions with councils—let me make that absolutely clear. In other words, we need a range of sites in the right places for the communities so that the people involved are content among themselves. It is not a question of any old site, anywhere, will do. That would be an unacceptable way to move in this respect.
	I am absolutely confident that any challenges by the commission and others are not reasonable. As I said, this order does not criminalise the nomadic way of life. It seeks to bring procedures in the legal system in Northern Ireland into line so that they are exactly the same as in the rest of the UK in this regard. This is a hot issue that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working on with representatives of the Gypsies and Travellers. Obviously we must find a solution. I do not know whether the problem has grown in recent years, but there has certainly been more disruption. That is why this order modestly attempts to address the issue.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report by the Africa Commission.
	My Lords, I am grateful for the many and distinguished noble Lords who are speaking in this debate.
	The Commission for Africa report, all 461 pages, deals exhaustively with every aspect of Africa's future and sets out a vast range of new bodies—expert panels, peer reviews, social co-ordination committees, enterprise challenge commissions, presidential initiatives, a peace-building support office, a panel of the wise in the AU Peace and Security Council, an inter-government authority for development, a Social Affairs Commission and very many more, all of which need funding for their secretariats and administrative and operational costs. If all these organisations are created and funded, the AU will very soon become another UN or EU—bureaucratic, out of touch with ordinary people, duplicating much UN effort and likely to absorb much of the money and the skilled people needed for work at the grass roots, work to enable ordinary people to own their own lives and build the economy from below.
	I believe that this ambitious plan cannot be implemented by aid workers on the ground alone. We shall need our embassies to work closely with African governments. I was struck, incidentally, by the inclusion of the Chinese in the commission. Was that an African initiative recognising China's increasing presence and influence in Africa, notably in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe?
	The G8 meeting is due in July. This month, as we know almost exclusively by the brave act of Kate Hoey MP and her visit to what has become an Iron Curtain country, Zimbabwe, hundreds of thousands of black citizens have had their homes razed to the ground by the police—the forces of law and order who were told to shoot to kill if they encountered resistance. Clinics, hospitals and schools which served them were destroyed and the people, including young children, AIDS sufferers and other sick people, have been brutally driven either into concentration camp areas with no water and no lavatories or to the starving countryside—and this in the depth of winter.
	Small free-traders have had their goods confiscated or destroyed. Compassionate men and women and religious orders who have tried to take blankets and food to the people have had them confiscated and have themselves been brutally treated. The Catholic Church has been forbidden by Mugabe to give succour to these people. There is no petrol. No doubt it is fuelling Mugabe's four Chinese jet fighters or his own travel abroad—to the G77, for example.
	Why is this relevant to a discussion of the commission's remit? There are two reasons. The first is that the report, although it never once speaks of the treatment of the population of Zimbabwe by its own Government over some four years, has much to say about the nature of good governance, acknowledges that it is a prerequisite of economic and social success for African countries, and recognises:
	"If African countries fail in their efforts to overcome weak governance, corruption and conflict, the case for outside support in terms of strong increases in aid is fundamentally undermined".
	The report adds that AU/NePAD should eliminate any current restrictions on the mass media, should listen to the trade unions and should provide an impartial justice system. Without effective policing, it says, ordinary people suffer violence, crime and insecurity. Justice needs to be impartial, judicial oversight should be strong, and,
	"not least, African journalists have a crucial role in holding the Government to account and exposing corruption and inefficiency".
	The African countries well know that that cannot happen in Zimbabwe.
	Why cannot these clear sighted and honest assessments in the commission lead to immediate action by the AU to save the suffering people of Zimbabwe? Why cannot the UN act, as it has with the AU in the Sudan? What is the point of the multifarious organs being set up by NePAD and SADC and such organs as the emergency preparedness of contingency planning groups under SADC? What action is being taken on the AU's own African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights report—first produced in 2002, stalled for three years by the Zimbabwe Government, and now at last released? It requires Zimbabwe to restore an impartial judiciary and security forces, to cease arbitrary arrests of political opponents—every one of the MDC MPs has suffered brutal beatings or attacks on their families—and to revise restrictive media and security legislation. That is what the AU report says.
	Under the present law, no charity is allowed to send money into Zimbabwe. They, like DfID, have to work through the UN which, with the honourable exception of Unicef, has until recently not been notable for telling the outside world what is happening. The UNDP has actually been working with the Mugabe government on a scheme to interview 30,000 householders to identify the causes of poverty and another for the ministries to ask local people what their plans are for disaster management. What a bitter joke!
	The commission has made many constructive proposals, but unless and until the chief architect of NePAD and the AU, South Africa—which dominates the SADC countries, which are virtually its satellites—abandons the discredited quiet diplomacy which works only in Mugabe's favour and does nothing for the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the G8 meeting on Africa will be a cynical and disgraceful exercise. It is not reassuring that Mr Mbeki continues to refuse to see anything wrong in Mugabe's wicked behaviour—something that he may come to rue if Zimbabwe collapses and implodes. That can only be bad for all the surrounding countries.
	I hope also that as a member of the commission, President Mkapa of Tanzania will be called to account for his statements made at the African economic summit in South Africa when the news began to emerge of the terrible events named "Operation Clean Up Filth". He said that this was no more than an,
	"ongoing clear-up operation, necessary to deal with some of the activities compounding economic difficulties facing the country, and to wipe out a secondary economy that was becoming increasingly active and exacerbating the challenges the country was already contending with".
	The Government of Zimbabwe were just trying to formalise the economy. He added that the stance of the West would not be tolerated, especially in the context of the G8.
	I believe that the opposite is true. Clearly the commission has accepted the omission from the report of any reference to Zimbabwe, no doubt reassuring itself that it is enough to make many acknowledgements of weak governance in general and to say that,
	"the right to life and security is the most basic of human rights".
	It acknowledges the existence, without naming them, of fragile states.
	However, in the face of the total inaction of President Mbeki, who has the power but not the will to make Mugabe let in the world press and the trade unions, and given the active support for Mugabe of President Mkapa, nothing will be done unless the G8 makes it absolutely clear at the outset that there will be no talks on aid until the AU, and in particular South Africa, acts to end the awful tragedy now going on in Zimbabwe. It could begin by, first, requiring free access by the world press and observers; and secondly, ceasing to block all discussion of Zimbabwe in the UN, and joining us in requiring full reports from all the UN bodies present in Zimbabwe, particularly on the issue of human rights, and immediate action to distribute food and medicine, but not through the government. A child is dying every 15 minutes in Zimbabwe, and AIDS is destroying the population. Thirdly, it might send in an AU/UN mission to review the conduct of the police and the state of justice; and fourthly, revoke the legislation which prevents NGOs from receiving money from outside. Without that, the present emergency would rank with the tsunami for urgent need and would attract instant donor support—but no one is going to give to enrich Mugabe.
	Somehow, the G8 meeting and the commission's report must be used to test the good faith of the African countries. At the least, the wall that they have built must come down and aid must flow in freely to those who need it. We are witnessing the death of a people. The G8 meeting must be used to save them, and no empty declarations must be made. The report says that it has tried to be blisteringly honest and face up to unpalatable truths. We are told that the right to life and security is the most basic of human rights—in the context of the Sudan, Somalia and the DRC—and not least that the AU has moved towards putting forward the concept of non-indifference to replace the OAU policy of non-interference. According to the report, that new policy recognises the responsibility of member states to promote human security into practice. It must not forget that it has called its report Our Common Interest.
	I have one further proposal for immediate action—that the Prime Minister should ask President Mbeki to arrange for an educational visit to Zimbabwe by Mr Bob Geldof on behalf of the commission. I know that Africans—and I have known many in my long life—are proud people. I cannot believe that they will shame their countries by continuing to pass by on the other side, and pretend that Mugabe is not wilfully destroying his people. They must stop him, and at once—and that can only be one of the good arguments for the commission and the G8.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on securing this debate and for introducing it with a passion which is no less penetrating for its quietness.
	I am slightly puzzled why, between March and now, the Government have not chosen to put the report on our agenda, given its importance and the inclusion among its commissioners of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development.
	As other noble Lords have said, especially the noble Lord, Lord St John, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, this report is very impressive and far-reaching. It makes clear the failings on all sides and lays out a series of proposals to allow Africa to get at least to the starting blocks, if not actually off them. It rightly points out that all the West can do is try to set in place some of the measures for Africa's revival and remove some of the barriers to its prosperity. Most is in Africa's hands.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and others have emphasised, economic development, based on the development of good governance, law, human rights, transparency and education, is the key to the transformation of Africa. However, without western assistance, the report sees little prospect of Africa being able to pull itself out of poverty. We see how deep the problems in many countries in Africa are from the words of the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady Cox, and the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Alton.
	We come to the key moments that others have mentioned of the G8 and the EU presidency—although whether Africa will feature in the British presidency as the European countries fight like ferrets in the sack we will have to see. At least Africa is on the agenda. That it is owes a great deal to Bob Geldof and the Make Poverty History coalition.
	Some encouraging signs are emerging from the EU and G8 countries. A key issue is what the US will do at the G8. In the Guardian this morning, Paul Wolfowitz, newly appointed head of the World Bank, seems to have had something of a conversion on the road to Damascus, urging the US to give more aid. When I hear him saying that the UK's support for Africa is "like a gift from Heaven", I wonder what agenda lies behind his thinking. Is he perhaps seeing new territories where the US can win friends and influence people—a counterbalance to radical Islam? I think that we should watch this one carefully, but perhaps with some optimism.
	The Africa Commission seeks a doubling of aid and disputes that there is not the capacity to absorb this. What chance is there of this doubling of aid at Gleneagles? And will the $50 billion IFF fly, or just the $4 billion vaccine scheme backed by Gates?
	The report makes it very clear that growth is what is needed and not just aid, or the reduction of debt, although those both are needed. It places a strong emphasise on the infrastructure needed for effective trading. Do the Government agree with this new priority and will that be built into the country strategy plans?
	On trade, the report points to what Africa does to damage itself, but also how the West damages it, which is a more familiar story. What hope is there of progress on this by the WTO meeting later this year? What are the implications of the crisis in the EU? Do the Government believe that special measures need to be put in place to allow African economies to be protected, as many NGOs have argued, before their own trade barriers come down?
	The report speaks of corruption as something that African countries and western governments have to tackle. Why is it taking so long for the UK to sign up to the UN convention against corruption? Will all the G8 countries sign up by Gleneagles? None has to date.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed out, the report emphasis the importance of education, but with a new and important focus on secondary and tertiary education, which is very welcome. What action might the Government be taking on that?
	In health, how do we ensure that we do not lure away doctors and nurses from Africa to the health service, and especially private hospitals, in the UK? I welcome the statement that there should be cash allowances for orphans, widows and other vulnerable people. That is very important given the depth of the AIDS crisis. I do not single out only those issues.
	I welcome the emphasis in the report given to women. I note today—and this is the first time I have seen this proportion—that eight out of the 13 speakers in the debate are women. That is a far higher proportion than the proportion of women in the Lords. It is very clear—and I am sure it is very clear to everybody participating in the debate, whatever their gender—that unless the position of women in Africa is radically changed, many of its problems will remain.
	On AIDS, which particularly afflicts women and girls, the commission recommends universal access to AIDS treatment by 2010. The G8 finance Ministers have, encouragingly, indicated that this will be agreed. If so—and it would be nice to hear that confirmed—how will it be financed and delivered?
	In conclusion, this is a very impressive report. Do the Government accept all the report's recommendations? If not, where do they differ from them? What difference will the report make? As the right relevant Prelate pointed out, how will this be taken forward? Two members of the Commission will be responsible for the annual monitoring of what has been achieved. Will that be sufficient and what else will underpin it?
	The report could be a major step forward, but only if it is implemented. We have to ensure that the commission's recommendations are not simply applauded and then quietly shelved.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth on securing the debate, especially as, when we last spoke on the Africa Commission report, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said that he was,
	"warm towards the idea of a full debate on these issues".—[Official Report, 14/3/05; col. 1101.]
	I am glad, as this has been a most interesting debate, with learned contributions from all parts of the House.
	It is clear that we share a common objective of wanting to tackle global poverty; it is just a question of how. As we said in March, we welcome the Africa Commission report; it provides a thorough, detailed and perceptive analysis of the problems that confront Africa. Although there are more people in Asia and South America who subsist on less than a dollar a day, only in Africa, sadly, is poverty increasing and life expectancy falling, due to conflict, corruption and health crises such as HIV/AIDS.
	The analysis is excellent but, I suggest, flawed in its prescriptions. The report may be a blueprint for the effective change and progress that we would like to see in that continent, but there is no implementation plan to show in comparable detail how the additional aid—£13 billion by 2013—would be disbursed. How would the disbursement be monitored to ensure accountability and transparency? Even more important, what measures would be taken against errant governments? What will happen if the money cannot be raised? Despite Mr Wolfowitz's encouraging remarks on the BBC this morning, it appears that the Prime Minister has not been as successful, particularly with the Bush Administration, as we would all have liked.
	The fundamental question is what mechanism there will be to monitor and secure the good governance that Africa so desperately needs. Can we really expect the development of good governance when members of the Africa Commission itself fail to practise what they preach? As we all know, President Benjamin Mkapa claimed in February this year:
	"I don't see Zimbabwe as an illustration of bad governance".
	We heard the horror stories from my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, and from my noble friend Lord Blaker. Meanwhile, the killing of student demonstrators in Addis Ababa by security forces and the arrest of the opposition leader show that the Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, is at complete odds with the principles expressed in the report, which says that,
	"The right to life and security is the most basic of human rights"
	and that,
	"democracy of some kind is an absolute fundamental".
	Could the Minister say whether she believes that it is appropriate for Mr Zenawi to remain a member of the commission, especially in the run-up to the G8? Will she join me in condemning unreservedly the killings and urge the Ethiopian Government to make known immediately the ground for any charges against the arrested politicians?
	A permanent escape for millions of Africans will not be achieved by aid alone. Every African alive today has received—or supposedly received—around $5,000 in aid. The Royal African Society argues that,
	"if aid were the solution to Africa's problems, it would be a rich continent by now".
	In fact, I am informed, Africa has 100,000 millionaires.
	Corruption is still systematic in much of Africa. It is a vicious circle, and the cynicism about corruption undermines the steps that some countries have tried to make. A poll published by Gallup and reported in the Guardian showed that, in Nigeria, leaders were termed "dishonest" by 92 per cent of the population; in Kenya, the figure was 87 per cent. Distrust feeds corruption and dissuades people from paying the taxes needed to secure the infrastructure and society that good governance demands. But if their own citizens do not want to entrust the governments with their money, how much should we really be putting through governments?
	At Question Time earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked about the UN Convention Against Corruption. Will the Minister tell the House why none of the G8 countries has ratified that convention, even though some 20 have?
	The need for increasing transparency is one that we all recognise, but the report offers no method for achieving it. African governments have had 30 to 40 years of independence to increase transparency. This is, alas, more than many of their citizens' life expectancy. Does the noble Baroness agree that channelling aid through NGOs and civic organisations would produce both greater accountability and cost effectiveness of funds?
	I cannot discuss corruption without reference to the NePAD Peer Review Mechanism. We welcome the participation in NePAD and, indeed, the African Union's mounting and ambitious operations in the region. But the review system remains a disappointment. Described as,
	"a voluntary process based on self assessment",
	it does not rate governments according to a score card for governance, transparency and suitability for donor support. Thus I suggest that those taking part will not be subject to much peer pressure at all. Will the Minister inform us how they will achieve a collective commitment to govern well to make the system work?
	It is also true that no economy can fulfil its potential without independent institutions and freedom under the rule of law. Aid must be used carefully to assist the development of property rights and civic institutions as the foundations of wealth creation. I fully support the very positive speech of my noble friend Lady Chalker. I also support the speech of my noble friend Lord Eccles. It is imperative that we address the issues surrounding trade. However, international companies that invest in Africa, especially our own, must follow the principles of corporate social responsibility.
	I apologise for not being able to cover debt and many other issues including military expenditure and land reform. I would simply like to urge the Government to turn all their weighty words into action, and hope that we will see significant progress in the wake of the summit.
	We need to be reassured that African governments genuinely share our determination to create a better future for their people; otherwise, it will be yet another opportunity missed. This is the best opportunity that we will have for a long time.